TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mills Ltd., the manufacturers and supplied the same under his invoices showing the necessary particulars of payment of duty to the applicant. This matter is duly covered under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 non registration by the dealer before 31-12-1994 does not affect the Modvat credit. In view of the decision in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal) and 1997 (93) E.L.T. 354 (Tribunal) in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Sri Vinayaka Alloys (P) Ltd. this is a covered matter and the Modvat credit should have been allowed. Regarding the penalty, during the period under reference there is no clear instructions and the bona fide understanding the credit was taken. When the Modvat credit is available penalty cannot be imposed. Unc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. In the appeal preferred by the applicant it was partly allowed and the order-in-original was confirmed only to the extent of Rs. 13,727/- in respect of two invoices and the imposition of penalty. 4. From the above, it is clear that as hold by lower Authorities it was not established that the dealers had purchased the goods directly from the manufacturer in terms of Notification No. 15/94 and that the dealer in respect of other sets of invoices were not registered under Rule 174 with the department. The invoices of the manufacturers shows that the dealers have obtained the goods directly from manufacturers and registers was obtained before 31-12-1994 in respect of first four invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... format in terms of Notification No. 15/94 are valid documents for Modvat purposes, and the persons who issued the invoices had to register themselves with the department in terms of that notification. A reading of the notification and the clarifications issued by CBEC shows that the invoice, even though issued by the person who was not registered, could still be accepted up to 31-12-1994. The Board s clarifications have been reproduced in Trade Notice No. 6/95, dated 30-1-1995 which indicates that dispensation was granted for acceptance of documents as issued by various dealers up to 31-12-1994 (paras, 1, 5, 6). This decision covers the present case on hand as pointed out by the applicant. In view of this position, the decision cited by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
